Hello Mark, Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 2:54:38 PM, you wrote:
MP> Hello MikeD, MP> Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 5:39:52 PM, you wrote: M2>> Well ... I have no idea what the sender =intended= it look like <wink> M2>> I can only say that I (normally) don't see anything that looks M2>> "wrong". Occasionally there will be a problem with the net and M2>> something won't come down, but that would be a problem no matter what M2>> you were using to display <g> MP> Or, I wasn't accurate enough describing the case, or you misunderstood me. MP> I'm talking about an html message with inline graphics, not a message with MP> links to graphics on a remote server. If you "click on the 'html icon' on MP> the left side attachment list" in such a case, besides the text, you get MP> nothing but little "red crosses". It was me not 'getting' your point, I think. Mostly because I haven't see a difference. Maybe I have just been lucky, but I never had something that didn't render correctly when I 'opened' the html version ... so I never really looked closely enough to see if the graphics were local or linked in from a site. MP> If you receive a message in which "inline" and "remote" graphics (or text) MP> are combined, you won't be able to see the "total" correct message in TB!. Hmmmm ... is that in the preview or when you actually open it? As I said above, I have not run into one that didn't render correctly when I clicked on the HTML attachment and I really don't worry too much about what it looks like in the preview ... as long as I can tell who it is from and what is likely in it. MP> It's not often that one receives such a message, but it happens, and those MP> can be "genuine" (I mean written/sent without "evil" intentions) messages. MP> Some people seem to specialise in such a "style"... Right ... we all know what we want <g> And in the hopes that tptb at Rit are listening ... fwiw, I have been accused of being a polyanna <chuckle> ... I have tried to voice my preferences and the reasons behind them. That does not mean that someone else's view isn't just as valid. Of course I =hope= that they will end up with things that I like, but when they don't <wink> I will evaluate and continue with the current version or move to the new one ... depending on my evaluations. I just didn't want folks to think that I was trying to say that their pet feature was wrong of should not be considered just because I don't happen to think it helps make TB better ... or something like that <weg> -- Best regards, MikeD mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v3.99.29 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.99.29 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
